I am goin at 14.99 a mth I think that is more reasonable and realistic than $50 a yr

Repost. This thread already exists:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=177975&page=1

It should adopt Netflix's prices at 8 dollars/euros per month.

I wouldn't mind it at that price...as long as the service is reliable. That's the big question mark hanging over it.

50$/year with Disgaea 4 TLOU etc ?
I would pay it monthly !

Here is my basic analysis.

The press picture states "Playstation Now" below is "Summer 2014" above 16 game titles. Summer is a season there are 4 seasons in the USA. Spring,Summer,Fall and Winter. The price of 49.99 reflects what a consumer will recieve for that season. 16 games is a lot to play through on average in a 3 month timeframe imho. I also firmly believe that this Playstation now is seperate from PS+. They're both 2 seperate entitys, both costing on average MSRP 49.99. 

PS+ lasts for a year @ 49.99

PS Now lasts 3 months @ 49.99 or 199.99 a year basically.

Netflix costs me 7.99+tax or around 8.50 a month in the USA. 8.50x12 = 102.00 a year for reference. Amazon Prime = 79.99 a year.

49.99 divided by 16 = around 3.13 per game if you try half the games 6.26 per game. I think that if this is the model it will appeal to some people.

The more I think about it though, the more I think I would rather own TLoU and Disgaea because 3 months for an RPG is enough but I would have to jump directly in the RPG's first and then the action games in case I ran out of time and the next season came and removed Disgaea then I would have to buy the game anyway to complete my saved file/game progress.

I think I prefer buying older games for 7-20 new/used on Amazon Prime still, but these new services are interesting alternatives. Hmm

Well you compared it to Netflix, and implied that it should be as cheap as that service, as far as I understood. And I thought and still think that this comparison is far off since more people do watch movies. If you have more customers the competition is bigger and you have to lower the prices to compete. This is aimed to a smaller userbase, it's a first ever service in the gaming industry and I think the price looks okay. I mean, it's only a PS service for one thing, which takes away 2/3 of the console market, to put it simple.

So it's not irrelevant at all, it's the whole point from my side. :S So this is why I have been discussin with you, but you don't answer my question(s). So what is your point?

But we could of course say, this looks fake and probably is, so case closed.

I compared the price of a populer movie streaming service.

PlayStation Now is a video game streaming service.

Netflix is most watched on PlayStation.

People stream movies, and play video games on PlayStation.

PlayStation Now is not competing with movies.

Not once did I say movie watchers is smaller than video gamers or vice versa. Myself and someone else gave you valid points in an earlier post. I never said it should be as cheap as Netflix either. $50 a year is actually cheaper than Netflix.

I'm going to be honest with you. Go make another thread about why more people watch movies than play video games, post some valid points with it, and stop derailing this one.

So we actually agree that the price of PS Now is not bad? Now I'm even more confused haha. :P

And for the first bolded part, yes you didn't but you still didn't answer my question about it for, I think, three times that I asked. And I think that I made it clear that I did not say this is what you thought, I said that I was unsure what you meant and therefore asked you again. Right? I never tell anyone what they think, I always ask what they think or mean, if I don't misunderstand someones point completely. And I did backtrack in the thread(just now) and saw your very first post about this being a good price, so your second post about comparing this to Netflix I did indeed misunderstand. I did read it as "Netflix just cost X so the price of PS Now is too much". And if you read my first post I even state that the price of the service is good, too.

For the second bolded part, isn't that a bit rude for you to say? I only brought it up because I thought you might mean that the price of this service is too much, I have no interest in making a thread about it. I wish you would not have said that last part.

I was under the assumption that you've read everything, and I'm at fault for not explaining things good I guess. So that last part was out of frustration.

I believe your question is if there is more movie watchers than gamers?

I don't think there is a way to gauge that except by comparing their revenue and install base.  Even if there is more people watching movies, I think that the average movie watcher spends less time watching movies than someone who is playing video games.